Rehashed Jesus

248 posts in this topic

markdohle 4,257

What is it about Jesus that everyone has to have some sort of theory seeking to debunk his reality? I think one reason for some, though not all, is fear. Jesus did talk about our freedom, how in the end we become something. Either we become like God, or we become though our own choices eternal horrors. The last judgment scene in the Gospel Matthew brings this out I believe. So if Jesus did rise from the dead, this has to be dealt with. One way is to try to disprove the reality of the Gospels as well as the Epistles. In the end he either resurrected or he did not.

I guess it could be thought that Jesus got together with his apostles and decided to start a world religion. That they would work with the Roman Government, have him crucified, but just before he died, they would pretend he was dead, and in three days he would appear to everyone and then the apostles would give their whole lives to this con job, or dog and pony show, travel, suffer, and at times imprisoned, and then knowingly die for a lie. Who would have thought simple fishermen and a man who was a carpenter could come up with this kind of thing. Especially since the Jews did not believe anyone could come back from the dead the way Jesus did…..resurrected. They did believe that it would happen to everyone at the same time on the Day of Judgment.

Here is one thread seeking to debunk Jesus:

Atwill asserts that Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

It goes on and one. The problem is this. The church exploded on the scene almost instantly, thousands converted, there were miracles. These have to be dealt with. One way, again, is to try to find an out, if there is not. Then what do you do with Jesus Christ? Wait, you can make him one of the God’s:

The below deals with the Jesus is just another myth, or a remake of the old gods.

Combating the never-ending list of parallels

If you do an Internet search on this subject, you will come across lists of supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus that are much longer than Bill Maher’s filmic litany. What they all have in common is that they do not cite their sources.

Should you encounter people who try to challenge you with these claims, ask them to explain where it is they got their information. Many times you will find that they originate with Gerald Massey or one of his contemporaries. Sometimes they have been repeated and expanded on by others. But these claims have little or no connection to the facts.

You should challenge the person making the claim to produce a primary source or a statement from a scholarly secondary source that has a footnote that can be checked. Then make sure the sources being quoted come from scholars with a Ph.D. in a relevant field, such as a person who teaches Egyptology at the university level.

Due to the mass of misinformation on the Internet and in print on this subject, it is important to respond to these claims using credible sources. Fortunately, there are many good books on Egypt and Egyptology in print. But there are also bad ones, so make sure to verify the author’s credentials before purchasing them.

The study of ancient Egypt has come a long way since its beginning in the 1800s, and new discoveries are being made even today that improve upon our understanding of the subject. It’s safe to say they will do nothing to bolster the alleged Jesus-Horus connection.

The Horus mythology developed over a period of 5,000 years, and as a result it can be a complex subject to tackle. But you don’t have to be an Egyptologist to answer all of these claims. You just need to know where to look for the answers—and to be aware of the claims’ flawed sources.

I am not posting this to change anyone's mind, but if you don't believe in Jesus, or the Gospels, fine, but this constant rehashing of different, new theories is somewhat absurd, though funny at times.

I think one reason for some, though not all, is fear. Jesus did talk about our freedom, how in the end we become something. Either we become like God, or we become though our own choices eternal horrors. The last judgment scene in the Gospel Matthew brings this out I believe.

I appreciate you specifying 'some', but I'm not sure what you're saying about Jesus that would be feared, afraid that Jesus is who he says he was and rose from the dead? Let's not confuse fear with lack of evidence.

So if Jesus did rise from the dead, this has to be dealt with. One way is to try to disprove the reality of the Gospels as well as the Epistles. In the end he either resurrected or he did not.

It's very difficult to disprove something like this that happened so long ago, and it's especially difficult when dealing with a book that is supposedly a mix of literal truths and non-literal 'poetic language'. The issue with how you've phrased this is that it puts the onus on the wrong party, the first question to be dealt with is, 'did Jesus rise from the dead'. Otherwise it works for everything: "So if Apollo did pull the sun across the sky in his chariot, this has to be dealt with. One way is to disprove the reality of stories concerning Apollo's sun chariot. In the end he either pulled the sun across the sky or he didn't."

I guess it could be thought that Jesus got together with his apostles and decided to start a world religion. That they would work with the Roman Government, have him crucified, but just before he died, they would pretend he was dead, and in three days he would appear to everyone and then the apostles would give their whole lives to this con job, or dog and pony show, travel, suffer, and at times imprisoned, and then knowingly die for a lie. Who would have thought simple fishermen and a man who was a carpenter could come up with this kind of thing. Especially since the Jews did not believe anyone could come back from the dead the way Jesus did…..resurrected. They did believe that it would happen to everyone at the same time on the Day of Judgment.

Fair enough, but I don't think you've chosen a particularly plausible possibility. I think a more plausible one might be something like, Jesus lived and preached and was crucified, he didn't rise from the dead bodily but it didn't take long for the rumors that he did to spread, after all this was communicated orally and the best way to get a larger audience is embellishment, what he preached was appealing and just happens to be what many people want to be true, and it's grown from there. This all originated in a period of time when people, although I think they were essentially just as intelligent as we are, were profoundly mistaken about many aspects of the world they lived in.

I am not posting this to change anyone's mind, but if you don't believe in Jesus, or the Gospels, fine, but this constant rehashing of different, new theories is somewhat absurd, though funny at times.

You mean similar to the way the 'perfect, clear' word of God has resulted in continual rehashing and splintering of what Christianity even entails, and which has been going on for a couple millenia now, is also somewhat absurd and funny? Well except for those rehashings where it involved torturing heretics and witches and such, that really wasn't very funny.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

The strongest testament to the real existence of Christ is in the real transformative power in the words of his teachings. There is no other philosophy on earth which has so changed and empowered human beings, individually and as a species, as the recorded teachings of Christ. These are the words of a real and very wise man because they understand the nature of humanity, and give accurate guidance in how to live a life free of fear, anger, pain and suffering, and filled with power, life and joy.

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Marcus Aurelius 448

I think much of it comes from the naturalist worldview, Mark. It begins with the presupposition that we live in a closed system where miracles simply cannot occur. You begin from this premise and then you come up with a Jesus to fit this view; indeed we can have any kind of Jesus except one who performs miracles and quite literally rose from the dead. It is easier to say that He was just a man or even a made up myth because it fits nicely into that closed system.

But I find it hard to believe that these men would have died for a myth; a lie, a fabrication. I also find it hard to believe that those who lived in the Apostolic Age wouldn't have 'debunked' this myth themselves. Why bother stoning Christians when you could have simply said "hey this man you're talking about didn't even exist."

Much of this "quest for the historical Jesus" has never been about finding the historical Jesus. It ignores the evidence. It ignores the eyewitness testimony. The goal has always been to reduce Jesus to whatever view fits the eye of the beholder.

Lastly, I find it ironic that people living 2,000 years after the fact somehow feel that they are in a better position to judge who Jesus was or wasn't rather than those who lived during His time and immediately after. I think I would be more likely to accept the testimony of the 500 who actually saw Him after the resurrection: "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Cor 15:6). Paul seems to be challenging the doubters of his own time, saying in effect "hey, if you don't believe me, go and ask them!"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Marcus Aurelius 448

I did respond to your msg a while back; not sure if you got that or not...

Anyway, it is good to have a chance to have some more discussions with you. I was pleased when I saw that you had commented on Mark's blog. Your analysis is always fair, interesting and worthy of friendly debate and discussion.

Let's not confuse fear with lack of evidence.

A good response from the skeptical point of view. But we do have to consider that this supposed lack of evidence IS a subjective opinion, right? This is what I was saying in my response to his blog that I just pasted on here. Many supposed seekers of the 'historical' Jesus start from the premise that there is a lack of evidence or no evidence at all.

They will go to any length to DISPROVE any INTERNAL witness....i.e. Paul made the whole thing up. The Gospels were written (pick your date); far too late to be counted as evidence or eyewitness testimony. But the thing is: every single one of THOSE points can ALSO be argued against. Just as ONE example, why would Paul fabricate a myth when he was already a Pharisee and a prominent member of the Jewish community? What did he have to gain from starting his own religion? Going from being a religious leader to a social pariah doesn't constitute very strong evidence for that.

It's very difficult to disprove something like this that happened so long ago, and it's especially difficult when dealing with a book that is supposedly a mix of literal truths and non-literal 'poetic language'.

That's a good point, and as you know I am not a Biblical literalist nor a fundamentalist. So those things CAN be hard to distinguish. I admit that myself. However, in the case of someone like Paul....his writings were letters meant for instruction. They were not symbolic or poetic. They were to be used for teaching. And unless we somehow insert the fact that he was a wicked and evil liar, it would appear that he wrote those to testify to what he truly perceived to be the truth. His letters are earnest, heartfelt...uncharacteristic of a liar with bad intentions.

The issue with how you've phrased this is that it puts the onus on the wrong party, the first question to be dealt with is, 'did Jesus rise from the dead'. Otherwise it works for everything: "So if Apollo did pull the sun across the sky in his chariot, this has to be dealt with. One way is to disprove the reality of stories concerning Apollo's sun chariot. In the end he either pulled the sun across the sky or he didn't."

But is it WRONG to put the onus on the wrong party? Because if what Mark is saying is true, or what I am saying is true...that the resurrection IS a literal event...then the implication is different, see? The logic you use here is obviously sound, but it's the end result that matters. If Apollo sailed across the sky in his chariot or he didn't....it really wouldn't matter to you or I, would it? However, if Jesus was raised from the dead, then it means there IS a resurrection of the dead, or that there is life after death.

It would change how we look at the world completely. I talked about this in MY most recent blog post (lol sorry for the shameless plug) on here. If Christ raised from the dead, then it means the naturalist worldview is incorrect. It proves that you are more than just the random products of time and chance. So to put it another way, I fully understand if you find it hard to accept the resurrection. It's not the easiest pill to swallow. But with that said, even if you are justifiably a skeptic of it, you should WANT it to be true. It means that death doesn't have the final word over you and all your loved ones.

So it's the end result that Mark and I are concerned with here. And well, all of us should be. It is a statistical fact that 1 out of 1 dies. But the question then becomes...is that it? Is there anything more to it than that? Science doesn't answer either way; it cannot. The naturalist worldview says NO and the theist says YES.

This is sort of my own modern spin of Pascal's Wager; but I would say if you are on the fence....uncertain whether Jesus raised from the dead or not; uncertain whether there is life after death or not; wouldn't you WANT it to be true? Because if it IS true, then everything matters. If it isn't, then as I said in my blog; none of it matters because everything is ultimately leveled in death.

I think a more plausible one might be something like, Jesus lived and preached and was crucified, he didn't rise from the dead bodily but it didn't take long for the rumors that he did to spread, after all this was communicated orally and the best way to get a larger audience is embellishment, what he preached was appealing and just happens to be what many people want to be true, and it's grown from there. This all originated in a period of time when people, although I think they were essentially just as intelligent as we are, were profoundly mistaken about many aspects of the world they lived in.

I know I might be in the minority as a Christian in saying this, but I actually appreciate the above statement. I would rather hear someone say Jesus was a real person, He was a moral teacher, maybe even a great one; He lived and died and they got something wrong about Him. So many atheists these days espouse exactly what Mark was saying; that He was entirely made up and was nothing more than a fictional character before such a genre even existed. I'm just not as against this view.

But I think there is reason to say they may have gotten it right. The Gospels depict skeptical reactions from all of the Apostles....they reacted just as you or I would have. They didn't buy it and they demanded proof. Paul does a complete 180; he goes from being a self-admitted persecutor of the Christians to arguably their greatest defender. SOMETHING had to have happened there to turn these men and women from skeptics, haters and cowards to bold proclaimers who were willing to go to their deaths for it.

For example, when I've embellished things in the past; if I get found out and backed into a corner...it would make me very uncomfortable. I would usually end up telling the truth and admitting that I fudged it. It's just so damn embarrassing to be caught in a lie, and it makes it worse when you try to keep building on top of it. Usually we end up telling the truth, right?

But these men were willing to die for their embellishments. If that had been me in their situation and I knew it was a fabrication or even a misunderstanding, I tell you what; I would have been the first to tap out. I'm sorry, but I want to keep on living lol

You mean similar to the way the 'perfect, clear' word of God has resulted in continual rehashing and splintering of what Christianity even entails, and which has been going on for a couple millenia now, is also somewhat absurd and funny? Well except for those rehashings where it involved torturing heretics and witches and such, that really wasn't very funny.

Touche. But in my mind what this does is suggest that there is indeed something wrong with human nature, which is something ALL the major religious systems of the world teach; albeit in different names and forms.

4 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Liquid Gardens 5,734

They will go to any length to DISPROVE any INTERNAL witness....i.e. Paul made the whole thing up. The Gospels were written (pick your date); far too late to be counted as evidence or eyewitness testimony. But the thing is: every single one of THOSE points can ALSO be argued against.

I guess to some extent my comments are somewhat dependent on what we're referring to more specifically; I'm not sure if we're talking about the debate concerning whether there was a historical Jesus at all or whether he was resurrected. I don't necessarily think Paul made the whole thing up, I think Paul may have honestly believed what he had been told concerning Jesus (my understanding is that Paul only encountered Jesus in a vision, maybe I'm wrong about that.). Maybe it's just me being overly skeptical, but I think these are for the most part somewhat valid questions: Paul was not an eyewitness, we don't know who wrote the Gospels but they also don't seem to be eyewitnesses, and a main purpose of most of the writings is to spread the religion which is fine but brings with it all the potential for bending of truths that we find with essentially marketing efforts. I agree those points can be argued against, but then if there is legitimate controversy about a subject then logically it seems the conclusion is we don't know; in spite of this, lots of people claim they do anyway.

Just as ONE example, why would Paul fabricate a myth when he was already a Pharisee and a prominent member of the Jewish community? What did he have to gain from starting his own religion? Going from being a religious leader to a social pariah doesn't constitute very strong evidence for that.

Okay, but we have ample evidence that people do things for all kinds of reasons, rational and irrational. Again, I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I'm not sure why we would need to propose Paul outright fabricated anything, maybe he did, but I'm not sure what wouldn't make sense if we just say that Paul merely believed these things. I can believe that Paul knew Jesus' teachings and had a vision where Jesus spoke to him and he changed his life, but Christian conversion is not the only cause of profound changes in people's lives and I'm assuming we're not going to treat visions as very good evidence, unless we want to deal with why other people's contrasting visions throughout history are not. As far as what he had to gain, I'm not sure, maybe he was sick of persecuting, all he really need do is believe in Christianity, he's already saved he's going to heaven, what's to really lose? What are the reasons Joseph Smith started his religion and how would the answer to that not apply to Paul also?

And unless we somehow insert the fact that he was a wicked and evil liar, it would appear that he wrote those to testify to what he truly perceived to be the truth. His letters are earnest, heartfelt...uncharacteristic of a liar with bad intentions.

Yea, I think I may be suffering from lack of knowledge on Paul, sorry Marcus. Other than his vision, what specifically did he have to be lying about, as opposed to just believing and possibly being incorrect? Or to put it another way, I don't think ministers or believers today are liars, I think they are likely mistaken; what is it about Paul that is different?

But is it WRONG to put the onus on the wrong party? Because if what Mark is saying is true, or what I am saying is true...that the resurrection IS a literal event...then the implication is different, see? The logic you use here is obviously sound, but it's the end result that matters. If Apollo sailed across the sky in his chariot or he didn't....it really wouldn't matter to you or I, would it? However, if Jesus was raised from the dead, then it means there IS a resurrection of the dead, or that there is life after death.

On the contrary, if Apollo sailed across the sky that would of course matter, that would be the most incredible event in human history and change nearly everything; even fervently believing it occurred one time in the past, like the resurrection, would inevitably change how that person views reality. Who knows what else is true, maybe something just as good and loving and fulfilling as Christianity is to believers. As far as whether it is wrong to put the onus on the wrong party, I'm not sure that it's wrong but it's not a particularly valid or compelling argument for something being true, because it works just as well for countless propositions like Apollo.

It would change how we look at the world completely. I talked about this in MY most recent blog post (lol sorry for the shameless plug) on here. If Christ raised from the dead, then it means the naturalist worldview is incorrect. It proves that you are more than just the random products of time and chance. So to put it another way, I fully understand if you find it hard to accept the resurrection. It's not the easiest pill to swallow. But with that said, even if you are justifiably a skeptic of it, you should WANT it to be true. It means that death doesn't have the final word over you and all your loved ones.

No, thanks for noting your blog, I'll definitely check it out! Technically I should not want it to be true, the best an atheist like myself will seem to get out of the deal is oblivion but there's strong indications it may be something much worse. I can hypothesize other afterlife scenarios that are equally if not more fulfilling and desirable than the Christian proposal.

So it's the end result that Mark and I are concerned with here. And well, all of us should be. It is a statistical fact that 1 out of 1 dies. But the question then becomes...is that it? Is there anything more to it than that? Science doesn't answer either way; it cannot. The naturalist worldview says NO and the theist says YES.

This naturalist doesn't say that, I say "I don't know". If we find some evidence some day maybe science will be able to someday say 'yes', although it can't ever say 'no', but it can't say absolutely 'no' about a whole host of claims that don't have any good evidence for them. There are variations of 'naturalism' though, I'll have to check your blog for more details on what you specifically mean.

This is sort of my own modern spin of Pascal's Wager; but I would say if you are on the fence....uncertain whether Jesus raised from the dead or not; uncertain whether there is life after death or not; wouldn't you WANT it to be true? Because if it IS true, then everything matters. If it isn't, then as I said in my blog; none of it matters because everything is ultimately leveled in death.

But that is also, as we were mentioning, a subjective opinion concerning what constitutes 'matters'. We can look at it in entirely the opposite way, this reality is essentially reduced to a simple game of whether you will accept that Jesus is your savior; all of your loves, tragedies, pain, ecstasies, worries, and inspirations are reduced to near meaninglessness, what can any of this possibly 'matter' next to an eternity, especially of bliss (or hell). What's 80 years of existence compared to eternity? But what is a mere 80 years of existence (if we're lucky) flashing out of a (possible) eternal sea of non-existence? I think there's an argument to be made that the level of 'matters' for that scenario is respectable.

But in my mind what this does is suggest that there is indeed something wrong with human nature, which is something ALL the major religious systems of the world teach; albeit in different names and forms.

I think the only thing wrong with human nature is that we are not perfect. We do things out of selfishness sometimes but for myriad reasons, sometimes out of self-indulgence and sometimes out of justifiable necessity.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Liquid Gardens 5,734

I think much of it comes from the naturalist worldview, Mark. It begins with the presupposition that we live in a closed system where miracles simply cannot occur. You begin from this premise and then you come up with a Jesus to fit this view; indeed we can have any kind of Jesus except one who performs miracles and quite literally rose from the dead. It is easier to say that He was just a man or even a made up myth because it fits nicely into that closed system.

I guess I never understood the tack of this argument, respectfully, it seems to kinda be a dodge. Naturalism isn't a presupposition, it's a current conclusion from the evidence. I believe miracles 'can' occur, I just don't think there is any evidence of any. I guess primarily I don't understand what you might or might not be implying or the way it kinda comes off, which is something along the lines of, 'yea Mark, it really just doesn't make any sense that in the face of all the killer evidence there is for the resurrection that some still don't believe it, it must be because they are locked into their naturalist worldview'. (don't get me wrong, I don't think you are being snarky nor am I offended in any way).

And if what really should be done is to approach the supernatural claims from an open system, then let's do that, we've got an entire human history of supernatural claims to work through. Even if we just stick to what is written in holy books we've got a lot of work to do, I would think especially to come up with constistent and fair arguments why what they state is not true but what the bible states is.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

I guess I never understood the tack of this argument, respectfully, it seems to kinda be a dodge. Naturalism isn't a presupposition, it's a current conclusion from the evidence. I believe miracles 'can' occur, I just don't think there is any evidence of any. I guess primarily I don't understand what you might or might not be implying or the way it kinda comes off, which is something along the lines of, 'yea Mark, it really just doesn't make any sense that in the face of all the killer evidence there is for the resurrection that some still don't believe it, it must be because they are locked into their naturalist worldview'. (don't get me wrong, I don't think you are being snarky nor am I offended in any way).

And if what really should be done is to approach the supernatural claims from an open system, then let's do that, we've got an entire human history of supernatural claims to work through. Even if we just stick to what is written in holy books we've got a lot of work to do, I would think especially to come up with constistent and fair arguments why what they state is not true but what the bible states is.

Miracles occur all the time, in that a miracle exists in the eye of the beholder. To any person who does not understand how something can possibly occur naturally then its occurrence is/must be, non natural or a miracle. For example when a being physically appears in front of me and then physically disappears a little later, after conversing with me it is miraculous. (Assuming it had a real independent existence and was not an hallucination) BUT I have some idea how this can be achieved scientifically. When it occurred to someone in the distant past, then it had to be seen as a miracle, because they didn't have a clue how it might be achieved scientifically. When the voice of god speaks into my head and says "Pull off the road NOW. There are two trucks passing around this blind corner coming up and if you are not off the road one will hit your car and kill you" I know that darpa funded projects are working on such a mental warning system right now and so, while miraculous, it is not completely beyond my ken how it is done/achieved.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rlyeh 9,924

Forum Divinity

Member

9,924

12,761 posts

Gender:Male

Location:South Australia

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Miracles occur all the time, in that a miracle exists in the eye of the beholder. To any person who does not understand how something can possibly occur naturally then its occurrence is/must be, non natural or a miracle. For example when a being physically appears in front of me and then physically disappears a little later, after conversing with me it is miraculous. (Assuming it had a real independent existence and was not an hallucination) BUT I have some idea how this can be achieved scientifically. When it occurred to someone in the distant past, then it had to be seen as a miracle, because they didn't have a clue how it might be achieved scientifically. When the voice of god speaks into my head and says "Pull off the road NOW. There are two trucks passing around this blind corner coming up and if you are not off the road one will hit your car and kill you" I know that darpa funded projects are working on such a mental warning system right now and so, while miraculous, it is not completely beyond my ken how it is done/achieved.

You've just described the argument from ignorance.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Rlyeh 9,924

Forum Divinity

Member

9,924

12,761 posts

Gender:Male

Location:South Australia

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

What is it about Jesus that everyone has to have some sort of theory seeking to debunk his reality? I think one reason for some, though not all, is fear. Jesus did talk about our freedom, how in the end we become something.

He also speaks of myths as if they were factual, like Noah and the flood or Adam and Eve. In that regard he was no different than any other man.

I guess it could be thought that Jesus got together with his apostles and decided to start a world religion.

Maybe he got together with the Easter Bunny and decided it would be a good time to die on easter, then the Bunny would hide his body..

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Well of course. If we don't even know what we don't know, then things appear as miracles. But as we learn what we do not know, as well as learning more about everything around us, we can begin to explain miraculous happenings. Every miraculous event that is genuine has a "real' and "natural" cause .

So a bloke appears out of thin air next to you and says, "I am going to restore your amputated limb for you." He appears to do nothing else but within a minute or so you have grown a perfectly good new limb. Now if that happened to you would you call it a miracle? Anyone in the past would do so, because they hadn't got a clue about the nature of human cells or the potential for cell regeneration. But we know that in century or two this will be common medical practice, albeit perhaps using a slightly longer time frame. If this happened today, however, it WOULD be a miracle.

I repeat. A miracle is what a person perceives as a miracle; and as Arthur C Clarke said, any advanced enough technology will appear magical (or miraculous ) to a person from a significantly less advanced technology.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Mr Walker

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

davros of skaro 5,784

The Holy Dopamine Ghost

Member

5,784

6,893 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Skaro

We evolved to seek pleasure. For millions of years this mainly involved energy gathering, and perpetuation survival. Now some pleasures are...

Mr Walker 3,844

The Emerald City is real because where else does the Yellow Brick Road lead to?

Santa is real because who else would have flying Reindeer?

We know what Little Riding Hood said to the Wolf through oral tradition.

People try to say Cinderella is a fairy tale because of how much time has passed since it actually happened.

Children are born knowing Jack & The Beanstalk, but a Giantless society turns them away from the truth.

People harden their Hearts to Pinnochio because they want to lie without having their Nose grow.

I read Harry Potter.The next day on my way to work I turned on the radio & it said "magic 101.1", then I immediately saw a Bus that had "Magic 101.1" on the side of it.WOW! Harry Potter is real.

If Tron was just a movie, then how do you explain what goes on in electronic circuitry?

There is way too much wisdom in "The Three Little Pigs" for it not to be true.

Were you there when Luke blew up the DeathStar?Were you? Were you?

There were so many people in line waiting with me to see the 3rd LOTR movie, I knew it had to be true.

How else would Goldilocks know if it was hot, too cold, or just right if she wasn't there?

There're Spiders right?There is such a thing called radioactive material right?

You have to think with your Heart to see the truth of Jesus.

You need to actually look into the construction of belief and why modern people, in the 21st century, still believe in, and have faith in, religions, belief itself, and spirituality.

The reasons are simple. They work. they meet real physical and psychological needs. They hold families and societies together and provide a foundation for the life of people They improve people's lives, empower them, soothe grief, overcome alcoholism and drug dependence, reduce pain, extend life, increase self esteem ad love of self.

This makes the rest of your post irrelevant All those other things do not operate at this level, and in this way, for humans universally across all cultures races and history. Religious belief does, which makes it an entirely different ball game to your examples.

You assume ( going from the points you make here) that religious believers are stupid or deluded. Actually the facts and statistics show they are the wisest of human beings, and holders of a very real truth about human nature, life and existence..

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Frank Merton 17,401

Most people who believe one of the extant religions do so because of the way they were raised (that is, they were indoctrinated as children) and we have an instinct that makes us feel bad (guilt, fear, shame) when we resist childhood indoctrination, even though as teenagers this fights with another instinct to establish our independence.

(This is also how conscience works -- our ideas of good and bad are maybe partly hard-wired but mostly an instinct allowing us to pick up cultural norms as children and then making us feel guilty when we break them).

Some leave the childhood behind and often hate the religion for "what was done to them." Others leave for awhile and then go back as "lost sheep" and report great feelings of joy and peace when they decide to do so (the body rewarding us for obeying an instinct). Of course some just simply never question it all.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Darpa is the usa Defence advanced research projects agency. It, along with other govt., and private agencies, works on research which might have military applications. That includes advanced cybernetics, robotics, computing and mind reading using science rather than paranormal parameters. For example their work on human memories is in part designed to be able to remove traumatic memories from soldiers but is part of a larger research project to be able to record and transfer memories. Their work on cybernetics is used to build exoskeletons for disabled veterans and for combat enhancement. Their work on robotics has resulted in a robot military carrier capable of working in rough terrain and so on. They have one project which uses implants and wireless technology to transfer human thoughts from one person to another. Still fairly crude as yet but advancing all the time. They seem very open about a surprising number of advanced technologies but there is probably also a lot kept from the public view

You need to actually look into the construction of belief and why modern people, in the 21st century, still believe in, and have faith in, religions, belief itself, and spirituality.

The reasons are simple. They work. they meet real physical and psychological needs. They hold families and societies together and provide a foundation for the life of people They improve people's lives, empower them, soothe grief, overcome alcoholism and drug dependence, reduce pain, extend life, increase self esteem ad love of self.

This makes the rest of your post irrelevant All those other things do not operate at this level, and in this way, for humans universally across all cultures races and history. Religious belief does, which makes it an entirely different ball game to your examples.

You assume ( going from the points you make here) that religious believers are stupid or deluded. Actually the facts and statistics show they are the wisest of human beings, and holders of a very real truth about human nature, life and existence..

Thor is real because we have, and use Hammers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

davros of skaro 5,784

The Holy Dopamine Ghost

Member

5,784

6,893 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Skaro

We evolved to seek pleasure. For millions of years this mainly involved energy gathering, and perpetuation survival. Now some pleasures are...

Again you don't really answer any of the points I make. However yes, Thor might well be/have been, "real" .Ie Thor might have been the way humans interpreted the power and ability of the entity they encountered in Scandinavian countries a couple of thousand years ago So might Mithras, ra etc. Humans interpret 'god' as they find him, through their own cultures, knowledge and world views. This is the only way it is possible to find and understand god.

The real question is, did Thor "work successfully" as a god for those who worshipped him? Did he provide the same real benefits as the Christian god? I don't know, but in the end people found "more" for their lives in Christ than they did in Thor, and so Thor was superceded. While unlikely because of the technology of modern society, Christianity, islam and Judaism, might also be supplanted by other beliefs. However humans will always be spiritual beings and will always experience contact with "god" and /or construct their own beliefs. Spirituality and religious belief is not something humans can, or will, grow out of because it is as much a part of us as speech and logic.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

davros of skaro 5,784

The Holy Dopamine Ghost

Member

5,784

6,893 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Skaro

We evolved to seek pleasure. For millions of years this mainly involved energy gathering, and perpetuation survival. Now some pleasures are...

Again you don't really answer any of the points I make. However yes, Thor might well be/have been, "real" .Ie Thor might have been the way humans interpreted the power and ability of the entity they encountered in Scandinavian countries a couple of thousand years ago So might Mithras, ra etc. Humans interpret 'god' as they find him, through their own cultures, knowledge and world views. This is the only way it is possible to find and understand god.

The real question is, did Thor "work successfully" as a god for those who worshipped him? Did he provide the same real benefits as the Christian god? I don't know, but in the end people found "more" for their lives in Christ than they did in Thor, and so Thor was superceded. While unlikely because of the technology of modern society, Christianity, islam and Judaism, might also be supplanted by other beliefs. However humans will always be spiritual beings and will always experience contact with "god" and /or construct their own beliefs. Spirituality and religious belief is not something humans can, or will, grow out of because it is as much a part of us as speech and logic.

Romulus regretted killing his brother Remus, so it must be true that he was a DemiGod born of a Vestal Virgin, and later resurrect from death.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Doug1o29 3,504

What is it about Jesus that everyone has to have some sort of theory seeking to debunk his reality?

If you mean the magic savior that a lot of folks seem to believe in, then it's just a matter of not believing in magic. There simply isn't any evidence of anything outside the physical universe. And even within the physical universe, a lot of folks want something a little more solid than somebody else's hunch to believe in.

But if you mean "the historical Jesus," then you need some history to back it up. Could there REALLY have been some itinerant preacher in Galilee who became the basis of the stories? Could be. There is no historical evidence to support it, so that means it's not history, but still there might be some factual basis. And that just begs the question: what is that factual basis? When people like me search for that factual basis, a lot of true believers mistake our testing for denial. That doesn't help me find the facts and it doesn't win them any converts. Instead of trying to alienate seekers, why not help them find what they're looking for? Then everybody wins, instead of everybody losing?

Doug

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Romulus regretted killing his brother Remus, so it must be true that he was a DemiGod born of a Vestal Virgin, and later resurrect from death.

That story is more about human pride, hubris, anger and consequence, than anything. Imagine killing your brother just because he jumped over your wall. It did represent the more martial roman culture, as did all their gods as compared to the greek pantheon. ie roman gods were generally more martial than their greek antecedents. Again, I do not get the point you re trying to make

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr Walker 3,844

Forum Divinity

Member

3,844

24,495 posts

Gender:Not Selected

Location:Australia

Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

If you mean the magic savior that a lot of folks seem to believe in, then it's just a matter of not believing in magic. There simply isn't any evidence of anything outside the physical universe. And even within the physical universe, a lot of folks want something a little more solid than somebody else's hunch to believe in.

But if you mean "the historical Jesus," then you need some history to back it up. Could there REALLY have been some itinerant preacher in Galilee who became the basis of the stories? Could be. There is no historical evidence to support it, so that means it's not history, but still there might be some factual basis. And that just begs the question: what is that factual basis? When people like me search for that factual basis, a lot of true believers mistake our testing for denial. That doesn't help me find the facts and it doesn't win them any converts. Instead of trying to alienate seekers, why not help them find what they're looking for? Then everybody wins, instead of everybody losing?

Doug

Plenty of historical evidence for the existence of jesus. Just not any known contemporary evidence. I don't mind testing evidences as long as here is a truly open mind behind the testing and its purpose.

The amount of historical evidence makes it almost impossible for any academic, open minded, seeker to be able to deny with any certainty the existence of a preacher teacher; baptised by john, teaching in the area described at the time, who built a considerable following of fellow jews, using the ben hillel theology, and was then crucified tthe behest of the ruling jewish orthodoxy. Later saul/paul had some sort of conversion, which he rationalised on the basis of the teachings of this man, and used to extend Christian preaching to gentiles because the jews found it too close to home. (contrary to established orthodoxy of the ruling rabbinical school of the time.)

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

davros of skaro 5,784

The Holy Dopamine Ghost

Member

5,784

6,893 posts

Gender:Male

Location:Skaro

We evolved to seek pleasure. For millions of years this mainly involved energy gathering, and perpetuation survival. Now some pleasures are...

That story is more about human pride, hubris, anger and consequence, than anything. Imagine killing your brother just because he jumped over your wall. It did represent the more martial roman culture, as did all their gods as compared to the greek pantheon. ie roman gods were generally more martial than their greek antecedents. Again, I do not get the point you re trying to make

Jesus chased out money changers in an area nearly stadium sized with posted armed guards.

Jesus must have been God to do that, because there is no other way to explain it.